Bombay High Court
KUNDAN GOVIND UGALE MARATHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
Gitti/khadi is not a mineral, so Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 cannot be invoked, rendering the notice and seizure illegal.
Summary
The petitioner, Kundan Govind Ugale Marathe, challenged a show‑cause notice proposing a penalty of Rs 20,70,050 for allegedly transporting stone metal/khadi (gitti) without a permit, invoking Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioner argued that gitti/khadi is a finished product, not a mineral, and therefore the revenue provisions do not apply. The Court examined several earlier judgments that consistently held gitti/khadi is not a mineral and that seizure of vehicles transporting it is ultra vires. Relying on those precedents, the Court concluded that the notice and the seizure were illegal. Accordingly, the Court quashed the notice, ordered the release of the detained vehicle, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 can be applied to the transportation of gitti/khadi.
- Whether the show‑cause notice imposing a penalty for such transportation is valid.
- Whether the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle was lawful.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 48(7), 48(8)
Subjects
- gitti
- khadi
- mineral classification
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- seizure of vehicle
- writ of certiorari
- Article 227
- transport permit
- penalty
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:29082
-1-
919-WP-7280-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7280 OF 2026
KUNDAN GOVIND UGALE MARATHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AND ANOTHER
......
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh
AGP for Respondents - State : Mr. C. V. Bhadane
...…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 17th JULY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The petitioner raises challenge to show cause notice dated
19.06.2026 issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Nandurbar/respondent no.2,
whereby it is proposed to impose penalty of Rs.20,70,050/- against
petitioner for alleged use of dumper bearing registration No.MH-39-AD-
1492 for unauthorized transportation of stone metal/khadi.
2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner
submits that this Court has time and again ruled that stone metal/khadi
is not a minor mineral and it is a finished product. Therefore, revenue
authorities cannot invoke Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966 against transportation of stone metal. In
support of his contention, he relies upon observations of this Court in
case of Vishal S/o. Laxman Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra, in Writ
-2-
919-WP-7280-2026
Petition No.8194 of 2022, decided on 25.08.2022 and judgment and
order of Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in case of
Ramakant Krishna Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition
No.10744 of 2024, decided on 11.06.2025 and orders passed by Single
Judge of this Court in many matters.
3. Learned AGP opposes the prayers in Writ Petition.
4. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of impugned
notice dated 19.06.2026, it can be observed that petitioner’s vehicle was
found carrying 3.5 brass of metal stone/khadi. The vehicle was inspected
and it has been seized by invoking powers under Sections 48(7) and
48(8) of MLR Code, alleging that petitioner had no valid permit for
transportation of gitti/khadi.
5. In case of Ashapuri Enterprises Through Karmiram B.
Choudhary v. The State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition
No.3957 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023, this Court observed in
paragraph nos.4 to 7 as under :
"4. Ms. Mishra relied upon a judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in Pralhad s/o Vishnu Wayade and
Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. and an order
passed by the learned single Judge of this court in Vishal
-3-
919-WP-7280-2026
s/o. Laxman Shinde vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
to submit that Gitti or Khadi are not minerals and hence
the question of obtaining any transit pass or payment of
any royalty does not arise.
5. The learned single Judge in Vishal s/o. Laxman
Shinde (supra) has expressly held in Paragraph No.7 as
under:
7. In the case at hand, this Court is constrained to
exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India as time and again this Court
has held that Gitti is not a mineral product, still the
authorities are passing the orders and seizing the
vehicles in which Gitti is transported in flagrant
violation of the Judgment and orders of Division
Bench and the Single Judges. Therefore, this Court
has to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. In view of this, petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clauses – 'B' and 'C'.
6. In Sumit s/o Hargovind Lanje vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.1579/2022, the learned
single Judge of this court (Nagpur Bench) has held that
the coercive action initiated against the transportation of
Gitti will have to be held illegal and ultra vires. In that
case also respondent has relied upon the said Rule.
7. In the circumstances, since the courts have
repeatedly held that Gitti is not a mineral product, seizure
of petitioner's vehicle is illegal and in breach of the orders
passed by this court."
-4-
919-WP-7280-2026
6. The same view is taken by this Court in catena of judgments.
It is now well settled that Gitti/Khadi are not mineral and those are
finished product. Therefore, there is no requirement of obtaining any
transit pass or payment of royalty.
7. In light of aforesaid settled legal position, notice issued by
respondent no.2 against petitioner proposing to take action under
Sections 48(7) and 48(8) of MLR Code, under which allegation for
transportation of Gitti/khadi in petitioner’s vehicle, cannot be sustained.
8. In result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause
(B), which reads as under :-
“(B) The Hon'ble High Court may pleased to issue writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order
thereby quashed and set aside the impugned show cause
notice of penalty dtd. 19/06/2026 issued by respondent no.
2 and further direct the respondent authorities to release the
vehicle bearing no. MH-39-AD-1492 detained by them
without further delay and for that purpose issue necessary
orders.”
9. In view of above, Writ Petition is disposed of.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Tandale
Checking your session…